Charles Esther
A new bill introduced in Congress seeks to close a loophole that allows federal judges to evade investigations into allegations of misconduct or sexism by simply resigning or retiring.
The Loophole That Lets Judges Evade Accountability
Federal judges facing allegations of misconduct have historically used a simple tactic to avoid investigations: resign or retire, and the inquiry ends. This practice has allowed judges accused of serious allegations, such as sexism or harassment, to step down before the investigation could proceed.
Now, a new bill aims to change that. Congressman Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, introduced the bill, arguing that judges and courts should not be allowed to “sweep bad behavior under the rug.” The proposal is currently supported by several Democrats, including high-profile representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
The Bill’s Key Provisions
The two-page proposal seeks to amend federal laws surrounding judicial complaints by ensuring investigations can continue “without regard to the resignation, retirement… or death of the judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint.”
The bill is designed to prevent judges from escaping accountability by leaving their post before an investigation is completed. By closing this loophole, the bill would ensure that allegations of misconduct are still thoroughly examined, even after a judge steps down.
Support from Legal Accountability Advocates
Aliza Shatzman, the founder of the Legal Accountability Project, has been a strong advocate for the bill. After experiencing what she described as harassment and retaliation while working for a judge, Shatzman said she worked closely with Congressman Johnson’s office on the bill.
Shatzman emphasized that many individuals within the federal judiciary have expressed frustration about their inability to continue investigations once a judge resigns. “This would untie those hands,” she said, adding that the bill is an opportunity for bipartisan support.
She hopes that Republicans will also back the bill, stressing that judicial misconduct is not tied to a political party. “Both Democratic and Republican appointees mistreat their clerks,” she stated.
Challenges to Passing the Bill
Despite the bill’s growing support among Democrats, its future remains uncertain without Republican backing. In particular, House Republicans have focused their attention on other issues, such as immigration reform, leaving the bill with an unclear path forward.
Richard Painter, a former government-ethics expert, suggested that the judiciary might oppose the bill.
Some judges, he argued, believe they are capable of policing their own conduct without external intervention. “You can’t just say separation of powers means there’s no checks and balances,” he said.
Notable Cases of Judges Resigning Amid Investigations
Several high-profile cases of judges resigning amid allegations of misconduct have highlighted the need for such a bill. In 2016, Judge José Antonio Fusté resigned before an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment could be completed.
Similarly, Judge Alex Kozinski stepped down in 2017 after allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced.
More recently, federal judge Joshua Kindred in Alaska resigned after an investigation found that he made inappropriate sexual comments to his staff and began a sexual relationship with a former clerk who had become a prosecutor.
The History of Close Judge-Clerk Relationships
Historically, the relationship between judges and their clerks has been one of close collaboration, with some judges even hosting clerks at their homes.
However, such relationships have come under greater scrutiny in recent years, with growing concerns about the potential for exploitation or overwork.
Allegations of misconduct sometimes lead to formal complaints, but in many cases, the investigations end prematurely when judges resign.
The Case of Judge Pauline Newman
In a notable ongoing case, Judge Pauline Newman of the federal appeals court is fighting to keep her position after allegations surfaced regarding her mental health and treatment of employees.
While some lawyers and judges have defended Newman, accusing others of overreacting, the case highlights the challenges of holding judges accountable.
Conclusion: A Push for Greater Accountability
The bill introduced by Congressman Hank Johnson represents a significant step toward greater accountability for federal judges.
By ensuring that investigations into judicial misconduct continue regardless of a judge’s retirement or resignation, the proposal aims to close a loophole that has allowed bad behavior to go unchecked for too long.
While the bill’s passage is uncertain, its introduction signals a growing call for more transparency and accountability within the judiciary.
The outcome of this legislative push will be crucial in determining whether judges can truly be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their position.
